Bombay HC Stays Compulsory Census Deployment of Private Unaided School Teachers, Finds No Statutory Basis

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has stayed notices and appointment orders requisitioning teachers from over 500 private unaided and minority schools in Maharashtra for census duties, holding that neither the Census Act, 1948 nor the Census Rules, 1990 provide any express statutory authority for such compulsory deployment.

Sitting as a Vacation Court on 22 May 2026, Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, leading the Division Bench along with Justice Sandesh D. Patil, granted sweeping interim protection to associations representing more than 500 private unaided and private unaided minority schools across Maharashtra. The bench stayed all notices, communications, and appointment orders issued by the State of Maharashtra and five municipal corporations, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Nagpur, Pune, and Pimpri-Chinchwad, that had requisitioned teachers and non-teaching staff as Enumerators and Supervisors for the 2026 census. The court also restrained the respondents from initiating any further coercive or criminal action against teachers who had refused to comply. The bench found, at the prima facie stage, that the Census Act, 1948, the Census Rules, 1990, and section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 do not, individually or together, authorise the State to compulsorily conscript employees of private unaided institutions for census work.

The Dispute Before the Court

On 16 June 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification under section 3 of the Census Act declaring that a census of population would be conducted across India. The first phase, house listing and housing census, was scheduled between April 2026 and September 2026.

Following that notification, Respondents 3 to 7 (the Charge Officers and Assistant Commissioners of the five municipal corporations) issued communications under sections 4, 4(2), 4(4), and 7 of the Census Act calling upon member schools of the petitioner associations to furnish details of their teaching and non-teaching staff for appointment as Enumerators and Supervisors. Appointment orders dated 27 February 2026 and 4 March 2026 were issued by the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.

The petitioners objected, but the requisitions continued. Show cause notices were issued and, in some cases, First Information Reports were registered against teachers who did not comply. The scale of disruption was illustrated by a chart placed before the court: at St. John's School, Mumbai, all 133 teachers had been appointed as census officers; at Chatrabhuj Narsee School, Pune, 111 out of 144 teachers were requisitioned; and at City International School, Pimpri, 55 out of 72 teachers faced deployment.

Eight petitioner entities, including the Unaided Schools Forum (Khar, Mumbai), Independent English Schools (Bhosari, Pune), Private Unaided School Management (Dombivali), and Members of International Schools Association (Malad, Mumbai), filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 15009 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the impugned actions and obtain urgent interim protection.

The Legal Issues

Three principal questions arose at the interim stage. First, whether sections 4A, 6, and 7 of the Census Act authorise the State or municipal corporations to compulsorily requisition teachers employed in private unaided and minority schools as Enumerators or Supervisors. Second, whether section 27 of the RTE Act, which carves out an exception permitting teacher deployment for decennial population census, itself constitutes an independent source of power to compel such deployment. Third, whether Rule 3 read with Rule 5(5)(a) of the Census Rules could extend to teachers in private unaided institutions.

The petitioners, through Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond, also raised a jurisdictional challenge: that the Charge Officers and Assistant Commissioners of the municipal corporations had no delegated authority under section 4(4) of the Census Act to appoint Census Officers, since no material demonstrated that the State Government had actually delegated that power to them.

The State, through Government Pleader Anjali Helekar, argued that the census is a massive administrative exercise requiring coordinated participation, that teachers would receive an honorarium, that most schools were closed for summer vacation, and that section 27 of the RTE Act expressly permits teacher deployment for census. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Govilkar, appearing for the Director of Census Operations, relied on Rule 3 of the Census Rules and a State Government notification dated 23 December 2025 under section 4(2) of the Census Act to contend that the appointment orders were lawful.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench worked through each statutory provision in sequence.

On section 4A of the Census Act, the court held that the obligation to make staff available for census operations falls only on a “local authority.” Since the Census Act does not define the term, the bench applied section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which confines “local authority” to bodies legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, control or management of a municipal or local fund. Private unaided and minority schools plainly do not fall within that definition.

On section 6, the court read the provision holistically rather than isolating the phrase “every person in charge of… educational institution” in section 6(1)(c). The bench held that section 6 is directed at persons who have charge or supervision over individuals present within an institution at the time of the census, such as inmates of hospitals or prisons, and requires them to perform limited census-related duties in respect of those persons only. It does not confer any power to compulsorily requisition teaching or non-teaching staff as Enumerators.

On section 7, the bench drew on the Gujarat High Court's Division Bench judgment in Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. (Letters Patent Appeal No. 244 of 2019), authored by J.B. Pardiwala, J. (as His Lordship then was). That court had held that section 7 enables authorities to seek assistance towards taking a census of persons within the premises of factories, firms, and establishments, but does not confer power to appoint or requisition employees as Enumerators or Supervisors. The Bombay bench adopted that reasoning and applied it to the present facts. It further noted that it was not even the respondents' case that private unaided schools constitute a “factory,” “firm,” or “establishment” within section 7(c).

The court then addressed section 27 of the RTE Act directly. The State had argued that because section 27 carves out an exception for decennial population census, it must be read as affirmatively authorising deployment of teachers from all categories of schools, including unaided institutions. The bench rejected this. Section 27, it held, is a prohibition provision, it bars deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes and then lists narrow exceptions. It is not itself a source of substantive power. In the absence of a specific enabling provision under the Census Act, section 27 cannot be pressed into service to justify compulsory requisition.

The bench also addressed the argument that unaided schools fall within the definition of “school” under section 2(n) of the RTE Act. Inclusion in that definition, the court said, does not ipso facto authorise the State to divert teaching staff for non-academic statutory functions. The RTE Act is a child-centric legislation. Where additional duties are to be imposed on teachers, they must be supported by rules framed under section 38 of the RTE Act. No such rule had been brought to the court's notice.

The State had also relied on a coordinate bench judgment in Thane Zilla Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh v. State of Maharashtra (Civil Writ Petition No. 10917 of 2015), which held that updation of the National Population Register does not constitute a census under section 27. The Government Pleader argued that, by implication, where the exercise is a genuine census, section 27 must be given full effect. The bench declined to accept this reasoning, observing that a judgment is an authority for what it actually decides, not for what may be inferred from it. That decision held only that NPR updation is not a census; it did not lay down any positive proposition that private unaided schools are under a mandatory obligation to supply staff for census operations.

On Rule 3 of the Census Rules, the bench applied the ejusdem generis principle. Serial nos. 1 to 4 of the table appended to Rule 3 list categories of government or public officers. The word “teachers” at serial no. 5, read in that context, must refer to teachers employed in government or aided institutions. Accepting the respondents' broader reading would mean that “any person” in serial no. 5 could extend to private individuals such as doctors, advocates, or chartered accountants, an absurdity the Census Act does not contemplate. Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the enabling enactment. Rule 5(5)(a), which obliges a Charge Officer to ensure availability of the requisite number of Supervisors and Enumerators, was similarly held to be a provision prescribing duties of Census Officers, not an independent source of power to requisition private school teachers.

The bench also noted that five interim orders passed by coordinate benches of the Bombay High Court in similar matters — including orders in Rucha Shriram Deshpande v. Union of India, The Sikh Education Society v. Union of India, Lokmanya Tilak Jankalyan Shikshan Sanstha v. Union of India, and CBSE Schools Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India, reflected a consistent prima facie view that teachers in unaided educational institutions cannot be deputed for census or election duties.

On the balance of convenience, the court rejected the State's submission that the summer vacation period neutralised the petitioners' grievance. The chart on record showed that substantial portions of teaching staff at several schools had already been requisitioned. The census exercise, the bench observed, can be undertaken through governmental machinery, local authorities, or aided institutions — all of which the statutory framework itself contemplates. No irreparable prejudice would therefore be caused to the respondents by granting interim protection.

The jurisdictional challenge regarding the authority of Charge Officers and Assistant Commissioners to appoint Census Officers under section 4 was expressly kept open for final hearing.

Outcome

The Division Bench passed the following interim directions, operative pending hearing and final disposal of the petition:

The operation and implementation of all notices, communications, appointment orders, and consequential actions set out in paragraph 42 of the petition, as well as any other similar notices or orders issued for requisitioning or deploying teachers of the petitioners' member schools for census duties under the Census Act, 1948 and the Census Rules, 1990, are stayed.

The respondents, their officers, servants, and agents are restrained from issuing any further notices, communications, or orders compelling teachers or employees of the petitioners' member schools to perform census duties.

The respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps or precipitative criminal action against teachers or employees of the petitioners' member schools for not performing census duties.

Affidavits-in-reply are to be filed within four weeks. Rejoinders, if any, within two weeks thereafter. The matter is listed for final disposal on 31 July 2026.